Jesus' teachings. Profound?

[McCulloch]

Perhaps, but for me the miracle things are secondary, in comparison to what Jesus taught. The teachings of Jesus are for me the greatest thing, not the miracles.

In what way are Jesus' teachings extraordinary? Can it be demonstrated that Jesus had great insight? What profound wisdom is there in Jesus' teachings?

[DanieltheDragon]

In what way are Jesus' teachings extraordinary?

He taught to love your enemies. But loving your enemies is a broad notion subject to speculation because the degree of love is not defined. For example loving your enemy would be to simply execute him after he is defeated instead of torturing him as punishment. So Jesus gave a solid clarification - 'whoever slaps you on one cheek turn another', 'if thief steals your jacket, give him your sweater'. His teachings are extraordinary because no other religioous text to my knowledge bans self-defense.

The Kakacupama Sutta: The Simile of the Saw parable in Buddhism bans self defense. Roughly 500 years before Jesus.

[JewishVolcano]

In what way are Jesus' teachings extraordinary?

He taught to love your enemies. But loving your enemies is a broad notion subject to speculation because the degree of love is not defined. For example loving your enemy would be to simply execute him after he is defeated instead of torturing him as punishment. So Jesus gave a solid clarification - 'whoever slaps you on one cheek turn another', 'if thief steals your jacket, give him your sweater'. His teachings are extraordinary because no other religioous text to my knowledge bans self-defense.

The Kakacupama Sutta: The Simile of the Saw parable in Buddhism bans self defense. Roughly 500 years before Jesus.

Thanks for pointing this text out - I didn't know about it. Still I wouldn't say it bans self-defense in the same direct manner as scripture. He's saying you shouldn't feel hate even towards bandits who are dismembering you with two-handed saw and remain compassionate for their welfare. Not feeling hate and not defending yourself are two different things. And if you're being dismembered with two-handed saw by a bunch of guys - it's likely you're already in no position to defend yourself.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 52 by JewishVolcano]

non-violence is a known aspect among many Buddhist teachings, it is part of Karma. Just because they don't word it the same doesn't mean that non violence is not part of the Buddhist teachings.

This doesn't mean they or Jesus are right for saying it though. The principle of banning self defense is so absurd that I am unaware of any sect of Christianity that actually teaches this. The fact that the majority of Christians denounce the ban of self defense speaks to how unrealistic such a principle is.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 53 by DanieltheDragon]

'Non-violence' is a broad notion. If you mean 'refraining from violence under any possible circumstances' then it does include a ban on self-defence, although it still falls short of specifically mentioning it like scripture does. Do you know what buddhist text mentions a universal and categorical ban on any type of violence?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 53 by DanieltheDragon]

'Non-violence' is a broad notion. If you mean 'refraining from violence under any possible circumstances' then it does include a ban on self-defence, although it still falls short of specifically mentioning it like scripture does. Do you know what buddhist text mentions a universal and categorical ban on any type of violence?

Buddhism does not work in rules or bans, a principle concept of Buddhism is to not harm life. All of your actions in this life influences your Karma in the next. Buddhism philosophically speaking is fundamentally different in its approach to Christianity. The concept though is there in the text. Buddhism is like a teacher guiding you through life. Christianity is like a tyrant commanding you how to live. Both have a similar concept regarding self defense the approach in verbaliziing it is different.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 54 by JewishVolcano]

Jehovah's Witness culture follows the principle of non-violence but we believe it's okay to take reasonable measures to defend ourselves.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 53 by DanieltheDragon]

'Non-violence' is a broad notion. If you mean 'refraining from violence under any possible circumstances' then it does include a ban on self-defence, although it still falls short of specifically mentioning it like scripture does. Do you know what buddhist text mentions a universal and categorical ban on any type of violence?

Buddhism does not work in rules or bans, a principle concept of Buddhism is to not harm life. All of your actions in this life influences your Karma in the next. Buddhism philosophically speaking is fundamentally different in its approach to Christianity. The concept though is there in the text. Buddhism is like a teacher guiding you through life. Christianity is like a tyrant commanding you how to live. Both have a similar concept regarding self defense the approach in verbaliziing it is different.

Buddhist text that you linked clearly prescribes behaviour - it says 'you should'. Karma is the consequence. If you go according to rules - good karma, go against rules - bad karma. It's a softer and less direct way to set out a rule but it's a rule nonetheless. 'Ban' is a type of rule - 'you shouldn't'.

If I'm a buddhist and I want a good karma then I need to consult my religious texts on how should I behave to obtain it. If there's a buddhist text that basically says 'you shouldn't harm any life under any possible circumstances' then it's a ban on self defence, at least as far as violence go. Is there such a text?

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 54 by JewishVolcano]

Jehovah's Witness culture follows the principle of non-violence but we believe it's okay to take reasonable measures to defend ourselves.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

That's what you believe to be okay but it's not what scripture says is ok.

[JP Cusick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

Is this your God, simply by another name?

Yes - I see God by many different names - and the different names are utterly irrelevant.

My God was in Egypt and in Babylon and with cave men and in China / Asia and in native America, and the real God is not bound to one location or one language or excluded from any person.

Of course I realize that my view is very different than are most people in this.

I say if we consider how much inspiration and motivation that the Gods of old Egypt gave to their people - then we are foolish to ignore it or to discard it.

It really does not matter so much what a person believes - because what a person does and how they act is far more credible and noteworthy.

In my view it does not matter much whatever the people believed about Osiris - it matters much more as to what did Osiris inspire in the people.


--------------------------------------------------

It's extraordinary. It essentially requires you to become a doormat. So as a christian you either actually become a doormat or become hypocrite who's not following his own holly book.

To turn the other cheek does NOT mean to be defenseless nor to be a doormat.

It means to resist evil without using violence in retaliation.

People who only know of violence become the doormat because they are powerless because using violence makes matters worse, and violent people are powerfully restrained from using any of their violence - and THAT makes them as powerless.

When a person learns the non violent civil disobedience (turn other cheek) then they start to have some realistic options.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 59 by JP Cusick]

To turn the other cheek does NOT mean to be defenseless nor to be a doormat.

It means to resist evil without using violence in retaliation.

People who only know of violence become the doormat because they are powerless because using violence makes matters worse, and violent people are powerfully restrained from using any of their violence - and THAT makes them as powerless.

When a person learns the non violent civil disobedience (turn other cheek) then they start to have some realistic options.

Scripture doesn't differentiate between defence and retaliation, it just says - 'if someone slaps you turn the other cheek', 'if someone takes your jacket give him your sweater'. It's not about violence in general, it's about violence for self-defence.

What civil disobedience? Disobedience to what? We are talking about situation where you're being assaulted. Say you walk the street, a guy comes up to you and says 'hey I know this guy you can just hit him' and so he smacks you around. Then he says 'that's a nice jacket you got on' - so he takes your jacket. So tell me oh powerful one - what you're going to do about it if violence is out of the question?